Comparing the diagnostic yields of technologists and radiologists in an invitational colorectal cancer screening program performed with CT colonography

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance 4D flow analysis has a higher diagnostic yield than Doppler echocardiography for detecting increased pulmonary artery pressure

Background

Pulmonary hypertension is definitively diagnosed by the measurement of mean pulmonary artery (PA) pressure (mPAP) using right heart catheterization. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) four-dimensional (4D) flow analysis can estimate mPAP from blood flow vortex duration in the PA, with excellent results. Moreover, the peak systolic tricuspid regurgitation (TR) pressure gradient (TRPG) measured by Doppler echocardiography is commonly used in clinical routine to estimate systolic PA pressure. This study aimed to compare CMR and echocardiography with regards to quantitative and categorical agreement, and diagnostic yield for detecting increased PA pressure.

Methods

Consecutive clinically referred patients (n = 60, median [interquartile range] age 60 [48–68] years, 33% female) underwent echocardiography and CMR at 1.5 T (n = 43) or 3 T (n = 17). PA vortex duration was used to estimate mPAP using a commercially available time-resolved multiple 2D slice phase contrast three-directional velocity encoded sequence covering the main PA. Transthoracic Doppler echocardiography was performed to measure TR and derive TRPG. Diagnostic yield was defined as the fraction of cases in which CMR or echocardiography detected an increased PA pressure, defined as vortex duration ≥15% of the cardiac cycle (mPAP ≥25 mmHg) or TR velocity > 2.8 m/s (TRPG > 31 mmHg).

Results

Both CMR and echocardiography showed normal PA pressure in 39/60 (65%) patients and increased PA pressure in 9/60 (15%) patients, overall agreement in 48/60 (80%) patients, kappa 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.27–0.71). CMR had a higher diagnostic yield for detecting increased PA pressure compared to echocardiography (21/60 (35%) vs 9/60 (15%), p < 0.001). In cases with both an observable PA vortex and measurable TR velocity (34/60, 56%), TRPG was correlated with mPAP (R² = 0.65, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

There is good quantitative and fair categorical agreement between estimated mPAP from CMR and TRPG from echocardiography. CMR has higher diagnostic yield for detecting increased PA pressure compared to echocardiography, potentially due to a lower sensitivity of echocardiography in detecting increased PA pressure compared to CMR, related to limitations in the ability to adequately visualize and measure the TR jet by echocardiography. Future comparison between echocardiography, CMR and invasive measurements are justified to definitively confirm these findings.

Diagnostic Yield and False-Referral Rate of Staging Chest CT in Patients with Colon Cancer

Purpose To measure the diagnostic yield and false-referral rate (FRR) of staging contrast material-enhanced chest CT based on the clinical stage from contrast-enhanced abdominal CT in patients with colon cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1743 patients (mean age, 63.4 years; range, 18-96 years) with a diagnosis of colon cancer. The primary outcomes were diagnostic yield and FRR of contrast-enhanced chest CT in the detection of thoracic metastasis. The proportions of patients with occult thoracic metastasis and those undergoing pulmonary metastasectomy for true-positive metastases were key secondary outcomes. The outcomes were stratified according to clinical stage at contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. Results The diagnostic yields in clinical stage 0/I, cII, cIII, and cIV were 0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0%, 0.8%), 1.3% (95% CI: 0.4%, 3.3%), 4.4% (95% CI: 3.0%, 6.1%), and 43.3% (95% CI: 36.8%, 49.9%), respectively. The corresponding FRRs were 5.7% (95% CI: 3.8%, 8.2%), 2.9% (95% CI: 1.3%, 5.5%), 6.7% (95% CI: 5.0%, 8.8%), and 6.1% (95% CI: 3.4%, 10.0%), respectively. The proportions of patients with occult metastasis were 0% (95% CI: 0%, 0.8%), 3.3% (95% CI: 1.6%, 5.9%), 1.5% (95% CI: 0.8%, 2.7%), and 6.1% (95% CI: 3.4%, 10.0%), respectively. The proportion of patients who underwent pulmonary metastasectomy was 0% (none of 474; 95% CI: 0%, 0.8%) for clinical stage 0/I tumors. Conclusion In clinical stages 0 and I, the diagnostic yield of staging contrast-enhanced chest CT in detecting thoracic metastasis was zero. For clinical stages II, III, and IV, contrast-enhanced chest CT as a baseline examination was helpful for the detection of thoracic metastasis and allowed for the possibility of a curative metastasectomy. There was no significant association between clinical stage and false-referral rate. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Accuracy of CT Colonography for Detection of Polypoid and Nonpolypoid Neoplasia by Gastroenterologists and Radiologists: A Nationwide Multicenter Study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess prospectively the diagnostic accuracy of computer-assisted computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in the detection of polypoid (pedunculated or sessile) and nonpolypoid neoplasms and compare the accuracy between gastroenterologists and radiologists.

METHODS

This nationwide multicenter prospective controlled trial recruited 1,257 participants with average or high risk of colorectal cancer at 14 Japanese institutions. Participants had CTC and colonoscopy on the same day. CTC images were interpreted independently by trained gastroenterologists and radiologists. The main outcome was the accuracy of CTC in the detection of neoplasms ≥6 mm in diameter, with colonoscopy results as the reference standard. Detection sensitivities of polypoid vs. nonpolypoid lesions were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 1,257 participants, 1,177 were included in the final analysis: 42 (3.6%) were at average risk of colorectal cancer, 456 (38.7%) were at elevated risk, and 679 (57.7%) had recent positive immunochemical fecal occult blood tests. The overall per-participant sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for neoplasms ≥6 mm in diameter were 0.90, 0.93, 0.83, and 0.96, respectively, among gastroenterologists and 0.86, 0.90, 0.76, and 0.95 among radiologists (P<0.05 for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The sensitivity and specificity for neoplasms ≥10 mm in diameter were 0.93 and 0.99 among gastroenterologists and 0.91 and 0.98 among radiologists (not significant for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists). The CTC interpretation time by radiologists was shorter than that by gastroenterologists (9.97 vs. 15.8 min, P<0.05). Sensitivities for pedunculated and sessile lesions exceeded those for flat elevated lesions ≥10 mm in diameter in both groups (gastroenterologists 0.95, 0.92, and 0.68; radiologists: 0.94, 0.87, and 0.61; P<0.05 for polypoid vs. nonpolypoid), although not significant (P>0.05) for gastroenterologists vs. radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

CTC interpretation by gastroenterologists and radiologists was accurate for detection of polypoid neoplasms, but less so for nonpolypoid neoplasms. Gastroenterologists had a higher accuracy in the detection of neoplasms ≥6 mm than did radiologists, although their interpretation time was longer than that of radiologists.

Burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography in patients with screen-detected 6-9 mm polyps

Purpose

We assessed the burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography (CTC) performed in patients having 6–9 mm colorectal polyps on primary screening CTC. Additionally, we compared the burden of primary and surveillance CTC.

Materials and methods

In an invitational population-based CTC screening trial, 101 persons were diagnosed with <3 polyps 6–9 mm, for which surveillance CTC after 3 years was advised. Validated questionnaires regarding expected and perceived burden (5-point Likert scales) were completed before and after index and surveillance CTC, also including items on burden of waiting for surveillance CTC. McNemar’s test was used for comparison after dichotomization.

Results

Seventy-eight (77 %) of 101 invitees underwent surveillance CTC, of which 66 (85 %) completed the expected and 62 (79 %) the perceived burden questionnaire. The majority of participants (73 %) reported the experience of waiting for surveillance CTC as ‘never’ or ‘only sometimes’ burdensome. There was almost no difference in expected and perceived burden between surveillance and index CTC. Waiting for the results after the procedure was significantly more burdensome for surveillance CTC than for index CTC (23 vs. 8 %; p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Waiting for surveillance CTC after primary CTC screening caused little or no burden for surveillance participants. In general, the burden of surveillance and index CTC were comparable.

Key points

• Waiting for surveillance CTC within a CRC screening caused little burden

• The vast majority never or only sometimes thought about their polyp(s)

• In general, the burden of index and surveillance CTC were comparable

• Awaiting results was more burdensome for surveillance than for index CTC

CT-Colonography vs. Colonoscopy for Detection of High-Risk Sessile Serrated Polyps

OBJECTIVES

Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) are suggested to be the precursors of 15-30% of all colorectal cancers (CRCs). Therefore, CRC screening modalities should also be designed to detect high-risk SSPs. We compared computed tomography colonography (CTC) with colonoscopy-based screening for the detection of high-risk SSPs in average-risk individuals.

METHODS

Data from a randomized controlled trial that compared CTC with colonoscopy for population screening were used for the analysis. Individuals diagnosed at CTC with a lesion ≥10 mm in size were referred for colonoscopy. Individuals with only 6-9 mm lesions were offered surveillance CTC. This surveillance CTC was followed by a colonoscopy when a lesion ≥6 mm was detected. Yield of both was accumulated to mimic current American College of Radiology CTC referral strategy (referral of individuals with any lesion ≥6 mm). Per participant detection of ≥1 high-risk (dysplastic and/or ≥10 mm) SSP was compared with colonoscopy using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 8,844 individuals were invited to participate (in 2:1 allocation), of which 1,276 colonoscopy and 982 CTC invitees participated in the study. In the colonoscopy arm, 4.3% of individuals were diagnosed with ≥1 high-risk SSP, compared with 0.8% in the CTC arm (odds ratio (OR) 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6-11.6; P<0.001). In total, 3.1% of individuals in the colonoscopy arm were diagnosed with high-risk SSPs as most advanced lesion, compared with 0.4% in the CTC arm (OR 7.7; 95% CI 2.7-21.6; P<0.001). The current CTC strategy showed a marked lower detection for especially flat high-risk SSPs (17 vs. 0), high-risk SSP located in the proximal colon (32 vs. 1), and SSPs with dysplasia (30 vs. 1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled setting, the detection rate of high-risk SSPs was significantly higher with colonoscopy than CTC. These results might have implications for CTC as a CRC modality for opportunistic screening in average-risk adults.

Evolution of Screen-Detected Small (6-9 mm) Polyps After a 3-Year Surveillance Interval: Assessment of Growth With CT Colonography Compared With Histopathology

OBJECTIVES

Volumetric growth assessment has been proposed for predicting advanced histology at surveillance computed tomography (CT) colonography (CTC). We examined whether is it possible to predict which small (6-9 mm) polyps are likely to become advanced adenomas at surveillance by assessing volumetric growth.

METHODS

In an invitational population-based CTC screening trial, 93 participants were diagnosed with one or two 6-9 mm polyps as the largest lesion(s). They were offered a 3-year surveillance CTC. Participants in whom surveillance CTC showed lesion(s) of ≥6 mm were offered colonoscopy. Volumetric measurements were performed on index and surveillance CTC, and polyps were classified into growth categories according to ±30% volumetric change (>30% growth as progression, 30% growth to 30% decrease as stable, and >30% decrease as regression). Polyp growth was related to histopathology.

RESULTS

Between July 2012 and May 2014, 70 patients underwent surveillance CTC after a mean surveillance interval of 3.3 years (s.d. 0.3; range 3.0-4.6 years). In all, 33 (35%) of 95 polyps progressed, 36 (38%) remained stable, and 26 (27%) regressed, including an apparent resolution in 13 (14%) polyps. In 68 (83%) of the 82 polyps at surveillance, histopathology was obtained; 15 (47%) of 32 progressing polyps were advanced adenomas, 6 (21%) of 28 stable polyps, and none of the regressing polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of 6-9 mm polyps will not progress to advanced neoplasia within 3 years. Those that do progress to advanced status can in particular be found among the lesions that increased in size on surveillance CTC.

Computer tomography colonography participation and yield in patients under surveillance for 6-9 mm polyps in a population-based screening trial

Purpose

Surveillance CT colonography (CTC) is a viable option for 6-9 mm polyps at CTC screening for colorectal cancer. We established participation and diagnostic yield of surveillance and determined overall yield of CTC screening.

Material and methods

In an invitational CTC screening trial 82 of 982 participants harboured 6-9 mm polyps as the largest lesion(s) for which surveillance CTC was advised. Only participants with one or more lesion(s) ≥6 mm at surveillance CTC were offered colonoscopy (OC); 13 had undergone preliminary OC. The surveillance CTC yield was defined as the number of participants with advanced neoplasia in the 82 surveillance participants, and was added to the primary screening yield.

Results

Sixty-five of 82 participants were eligible for surveillance CTC of which 56 (86.2 %) participated. Advanced neoplasia was diagnosed in 15/56 participants (26.8 %) and 9/13 (69.2 %) with preliminary OC. Total surveillance yield was 24/82 (29.3 %). No carcinomas were detected. Adding surveillance results to initial screening CTC yield significantly increased the advanced neoplasia yield per 100 CTC participants (6.1 to 8.6; p < 0.001) and per 100 invitees (2.1 to 2.9; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Surveillance CTC for 6-9 mm polyps has a substantial yield of advanced adenomas and significantly increased the CTC yield in population screening.

Key Points

• The participation rate in surveillance CT colonography (CTC) is 86 %.

• Advanced adenoma prevalence in a 6-9 mm CTC surveillance population is high.

• Surveillance CTC significantly increases the yield of population screening by CTC.

• Surveillance CTC for 6-9 mm polyps is a safe strategy.

• Surveillance CTC is unlikely to yield new important extracolonic findings.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of CT colonography interpreted by radiologists and radiographers

Objective

To compare computed tomographic colonography (CTC) performance of four trained radiographers with the CTC performance of two experienced radiologists.

Methods

Four radiographers and two radiologists interpreted 87 cases with 40 polyps ≥6 mm. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed on a per-patient basis. On a per-polyp basis, sensitivity was calculated according to the respective size categories (polyps ≥6 mm as well as polyps ≥10 mm).

Results

Overall per-patient sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm was 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.4–91.0) and 76.2 % (95 % CI 61.7–90.6), for the radiographers and radiologists, respectively. Overall per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm were 81.4 % (95 % CI 73.7–89.2) and 81.1 % (95 % CI 73.8–88.3) for the radiographers and the radiologists, respectively. For the radiographers, overall per-polyp sensitivity was 60.3 % (95 % CI 50.3–70.3) and 60.7 % (95 % CI 42.2–79.2) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. For the radiologists, overall per polyp sensitivity was 59.2 % (95 % CI 46.4–72.0) and 69.0 % (95 % CI 48.1–89.6) for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively.

Conclusion

Radiographers with training in CT colonographic evaluation achieved sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection comparable with that of experienced radiologists.

Main messages

• The diagnostic accuracy of trained radiographers was comparable to that of experienced radiologists.

• The use of radiographers in reading CTC examinations is acceptable, however radiologists would still be necessary for the evaluation of extracolonic findings.

• Skilled non-radiologists may play a vital role as a second reader of intraluminal findings or by performing quality control of examinations before patient dismissal.

Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions

The first evidence that screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) could effectively reduce mortality dates back 20 years. However, actual population screening has, in many countries, halted at the level of individual testing and discussions on differences between screening tests. With a wealth of new evidence from various community-based studies looking at test uptake, screening-programme organization and the importance of quality assurance, population screening for CRC is now moving into a new realm, promising better results in terms of reducing CRC-specific morbidity and mortality. Such a shift in the paradigm requires a change from opportunistic, individual testing towards organized population screening with comprehensive monitoring and full-programme quality assurance. To achieve this, a combination of factors--including test characteristics, uptake, screenee autonomy, costs and capacity--must be considered. Thus, evidence from randomized trials comparing different tests must be supplemented by studies of acceptance and uptake to obtain the full picture of the effectiveness (in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost) the different strategies have. In this Review, we discuss a range of screening modalities and describe the factors to be considered to achieve a truly effective population CRC screening programme.

Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-4000 electrolyte solution and 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets for computed tomographic colonography (CTC).

METHODS: Sixty subjects who gave informed consent were randomly assigned to study group A, study group B or the control group. On the day prior to CTC, subjects in study group A were given 20 mL 40% wt/vol barium sulfate suspension before 3 mealtimes, 60 mL 60% diatrizoate meglumine diluted in 250 mL water after supper, and 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets 1 h before oral administration of 2 L PEG-4000 electrolyte solution. Subjects in study group B were treated identically to those in study group A, with the exception of bisacodyl which was given 1 h after oral PEG-4000. Subjects in the control group were managed using the same strategy as the subjects in study group A, but without administration of bisacodyl. Residual stool and fluid scores, the attenuation value of residual fluid, and discomfort during bowel preparation in the three groups were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS: The mean scores for residual stool and fluid in study group A were lower than those in study group B, but the differences were not statistically significant. Subjects in study group A showed greater stool and fluid cleansing ability than the subjects in study group B. The mean scores for residual stool and fluid in study groups A and B were lower than those in the control group, and were significantly different. There was no significant difference in the mean attenuation value of residual fluid between study group A, study group B and the control group. The total discomfort index during bowel preparation was 46, 45 and 45 in the three groups, respectively, with no significant difference.

CONCLUSION: Administration of 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets prior to or after oral administration of 2 L PEG-4000 electrolyte solution enhances stool and fluid cleansing ability, and has no impact on the attenuation value of residual fluid or the discomfort index. The former is an excellent alternative for CTC colorectum cleansing

Does CT colonography have a role for population-based colorectal cancer screening?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe. CRC screening has been proven to reduce disease-specific mortality and several European countries employ national screening programmes. These almost exclusively rely on stool tests, with endoscopy used as an adjunct in some countries. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a potential screening test, with an estimated sensitivity of 88 % for advanced neoplasia ≥10 mm. Recent randomised studies have shown that CTC and colonoscopy have similar yields of advanced neoplasia per screened invitee, indicating that CTC is potentially viable as a primary screening test. However, the evidence is not fully elaborated. It is unclear whether CTC screening is cost-effective and the impact of extracolonic findings, both medical and economic, remains unknown. Furthermore, the effect of CTC screening on CRC-related mortality is unknown, as it is also unknown for colonoscopy. It is plausible that both techniques could lead to decreased mortality, as for sigmoidoscopy and gFOBT. Although radiation exposure is a drawback, this disadvantage may be over-emphasised. In conclusion, the detection characteristics and acceptability of CTC suggest it is a viable screening investigation. Implementation will depend on detection of extracolonic disease and health-economic impact. Key Points • Meta-analysis of CT colonographic screening showed high sensitivity for advanced neoplasia ≥10mm. • CTC, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy screening all have similar yields for advanced neoplasia. • Good quality information regarding the cost-effectiveness of CTC screening is lacking. • There is little good quality data regarding the impact of extracolonic findings. • CTC triage is not clinically effective in first round gFOBT/FIT positives.